[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You said that there wasn't any way to get PGA Tour pros to interact with the architecture. Absent wind and/or ground conditions that make the ball move somewhere once it's landed, I tend to agree.

Then, how do we explain Harbour Town?


David,

I can't explain it because I haven't played it.
But, after I've played it, I think I'd be able to explain it.

I was playing against Pete Dye in the North-South Amateur when he was building the course.

We had some nice discussions regarding golf and his leanings toward the penal golf features found in the UK.

It's not overly firm, and wind isn't a huge factor except occasionally for perhaps the final holes along the water. The greens are small and flatish, and not overly irregularly shaped (except for a limited number of greens like #17). The course is not more than 7,000 yards. Yet clearly the players are interfacing with the architecture. Trees that force players to certain lines or spots and doglegs that turn at shorter distances than the players' capacity to drive the ball would seem to be doing the trick here.

There are other examples from tour courses where the players' raw length doesn't help. Riviera #10, Muirfield Village #14, the third hole at Pinehurst #2, even #17 at TPC Scottsdale. Are these holes oddities, holes that force players of all lengths and abilities to interface with the architecture? I know that these are isolated holes on these courses, but wouldn't a course that has a lot of these types of elements be enjoyable for its membership while still posing an interesting challenge for the best players in the game?

I disagree, length helps at Riviera # 10 and at the 3rd at Pinehurst # 2.

Length is rarely, if ever a disadvantage.

When guys hit their 7 iron as far as I hit my 3 iron, that's an advantage not related to the driver.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, hitting the ball the furthest in a home run contest is obviously going to show who is best. 

However, golf doesn't boil down to who hits it the furthest as driving is just one part of this very difficult game. 

You're missing the point or don't understand the issue.
It's not about WHO hits it the farthest, it's about THEY ALL HIT IT FAR.

Ever watch a long drive contest?  Those boys aren't cashing checks on any Tour.  My point about Jordan and Marino is that even though many people can do one small facet of their game better than they can, MJ and DM are still much better at the game as a whole.  I'll certainly concede that hitting it further may be a characteristic of a great player, but its not a means to an end as many wish to believe.  The only thing a person can conclude about a long hitter is that they swing hard.

I think the proper conclusion is that they generate tremendous clubhead speed.
Some seem to do it effortlessly.

Why people give a darn if golf courses are somehow easier to play for the .001% of the golfing population blows me away. 
It's not just the .001 % who are hitting it farther, it's the enormous number of golfers who are hitting it far.

A few years ago, at the Nebraska State Amateur at Wild Horse, a 17 year old high school kid was hitting it farther than Jack Nicklaus ever dreamed of.
It's a systemic generational trend.

There isn't one person on this message board that can say Plainfield is obsolete to them. 

That's not true, it is obsolete unless you ramp up the green speeds to 12, lengthen the course, grow the rough to dense, high levels and firm up the greens.
It's a wonderful, wonderful golf course, but, without crafting those additional defenses, it's obsolete

A few years ago, Neil Regan, Tom Nieporte, myself and another fellow played the old U.S. Open course at WFW.
It was obsolete without those added defenses.
Fun, but competitively obsolete.
It bears no resemblance to the championship course today.


Why the Bubba Watsons of the world can get so many old men's panties in a bunch just eludes me.  I'd bet good money that the back tees at Plainfield and pretty much every other golf course on Tour are made up of virgin grass on a daily basis. 

Then you're not famliar with Plainfield.
Like so many older courses, many of the holes are land locked and can't be lengthened.

As an example, we played # 15 from all the way back (372).  It was wet. Three of us flew the right fairway bunkers by a good margin, maybe 40 yards, leaving 100 yard shots into the green.  # 5 at 527, driver, 3-wood, 60 yard L-wedge.  A PGA Tour pro would hit it in two regularly.

When holes are land locked, distance can't be added, which means that the DZ features are obsoleted.
So, do you move or add additional features ?
And what does that do to the mediocre or poor golfer ?


The black tees at OFCC certainly are, but yet the conversation of how we can make it longer still persists.  Fact is, the game is still very difficult for the VAST majority of players and what Tour players do is a complete oddity.  The only courses becoming obsolete to technology are the ones whose members are all playing with one foot off the back of the back tees.  Few of those exist. 

That's not true.  Almost every course is becoming obsolete to the next generation of golfers.
Especially those that are land locked.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Most of the players in the 2011 Barclays Championship did not attempt to hit it over these bunkers. As has been mentioned earlier, the longer-hitting contestants were presented with an interesting decision.

Here, in yards, is a random sampling of some of the drives that ended up past these bunkers - 310, 295, 304, 325, 301, 335, 324, 301, 300, 297. The longest was turned in by a 6'5" workout fanatic.

What is an "intended" feature?

[JNC Lyon]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

Why does this matter?  Why does it matter for Plainfield?  Why does it matter for any golf course that isn't a TPC course?  
Any course that isn't too short for a PGA Tour pro is too long for 99.99% of all golfers, meaning it is more expensive to construct and maintain than is necessary.

JNC, you're forgetting that the PGA Tour Pros play from different tees than do 99.99 % of all golfers.

I'm not.  But building new tees and making golf courses longer for pros affects the whole game.  Longer golf courses take up more land, take longer to play, and are more expensive to play and build.  Hence, longer back tees affect all golfers, even if they are not playing from those tees.

Who gives a damn if a course is too short for PGA Tour pros?

Because, chances are, from the forward tee, it's too short for today's better or long hitting amateurs.
They no longer interface with the architectural features.

Recently, I played with a 5 handicapper, who, on the second hole of Trump Bedminster, drove it 40 yards from the green from the blue tees.

He's a young man with a family and a business who doesn't devote a lot of time to golf.
If he did, his handicap would be lower and the architectural features would become more and more meaningless to him.

That's my point

So this guy kills the ball and doesn't play that much.  There are a few guys like that out there.  They are also plenty of players--plenty of very good players--who play every day and don't hit the golf ball very far.  I'm a 5 handicap, and I don't hit it much farther than 260.  A lot of my low-handicap friends are the same way.  Point is--not every good player will be able to interface with the architecture.  Some guys will hit it the correct length, but some will hit it farther and some will hit it shorter.

The solution is to place hazards at all different distances off the tee.  Put some at 180, 200, 240, 280, and 330 on various holes.  That way, everyone will interface with the architecture at one point or another.  And of course, you can defend par at the greens, because everyone will have to deal with the challenge of the green at some point.  The solution is not to overreact and lengthen the golf course.
 

[Sean_A]

JNC

I reckon what you are saying is something I have long believed; perhaps only half (or even less) of the hazards (mainly bunkers) should really be in play for any given player on any given day. 

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

Sean,

I think that's exactly right.  If every bunker on a golf course is in play for you, that means a lot of those bunkers will be out of play for those who hit it a different distance.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Attention architects:

How about a Hell's Half Acre type of bunker from 290y to 350y off the tee for the pros? That's one way to limit distance.

[John_Lovito]

Given the extremely wet conditions at Plainfield for the Barclays I think the jury is still out if Plainfield is too short to challenge professional golfers.  Playing at 7,000 yards par 71, the course was never going to challenge them with length; its main defense was going to be the greens and forcing positional play (bad misses being punished.)  The two weeks prior to the tournament Plainfield received 13 inches of rain and then a significant amount of rain during the tournament.  This effectively negated Plainfield’s defenses.  The greens were running at about 9-9.5 for the tournament and the pros had a green light to go at every flag given how receptive the greens were.  According to a PGA official on site, the conditions of the course and the fact the pro’s were able to put their hands on the ball for all three rounds equated to a 3 shot per round advantage.

[Mike Hendren]

I would argue that the 9th at Plainfield is a more strategic hole for the big hitter.  Those crossing bunkers are extremely deep and the man who boldly carries them - no small feat even with today's technology, deserves the simple pitch that remains.  The shorter or less sure player is faced with a blind approach.  The risk/reward is commensurate - the successful big hitter gains a half stroke advantage from the tee.  What's so bad about that?

Mike, because he gains another half stroke on # 4, another on # 18 and probably another on # 15.  That's two full strokes per round, 8 per tournament.  That's a pretty big advantage.

Isn't he entitled to that advantage? Certainly we'd all agree that other things being equal, hitting the ball farther is a good thing, no?  The issue then is whether the rest of his game is good enough to capitalize on this advantage.

[JR Potts]

I haven't played Plainfield but given my convresations with guys who played it in the Barclays, Pat has hit the nail right on the head.

What has been conveyed to me is that the risks are too little and the reward is too great for those who can hit the ball 300+.  For those that hit it 280ish yards, the landing areas were such that the ball would roll back down hills and thus, a twenty yard difference in carry would/could mean a 60 yard difference in ball location....without any additional risk to the longer hitter.

I don't know - that's just what I was told by 3 guys.

[Tim Gavrich]

Pat, or anyone, really--

What is the under-par winning score at which we declare a course "obsolete" or "too short" for the pros?

Can a course that DOES "force the players to interface with the architecture" yield a winning score of -16 or better?  Or must such a course defend par better than that?

Also, if taking high-level professional events to the great classic courses causes us to be frustrated over the fact that their best features are not accessed by the players, why have we been pining for the Tour to go away from the modern, championship-geared courses and back to these classics?  Let's just hold every major at Atlanta Athletic Club and be done with it.

Or is it things other than just driving distance that cause these courses to seem obsolete?  Such as the foot of rain Plainfield received prior to the tournament?  Such as lift-clean-and-place?  Such as the slower green speeds?

[Tom Bagley]

I have never been to Plainfield, so my apologies if I am incorrect, but:

I checked out Google Earth while watching the telecast and seeing the shots into 18, and being surprised by some of the commentary.  I usually find that CBS - McCord in particular - inflates the distance that the pros are hitting the ball.  They seem to "forget," or not notice, situations where the tees have been moved forward (For example - the 18th tee at Atlanta AC for the last round of the PGA). 

According to Google Earth from the forward tee on Plainfield 18, (the one that I believe the pros were playing) the carry is 253 from the back of that tee to the front edge.  From the tee closer to the 17th green, the carry is in the 295 range.

On the 9th hole, the carry is approximatley 305 to reach the fairway above the second bunker from the right - from the tips.

I understand that both carries are significantly uphill, and perhaps I am looking at the wrong information, but I can accept the idea that Steve Stricker, Jim Furyk etal can perhaps carry their driver 250 + yards uphill and that Dustin Johnson could carry his 3-wood approximatley 260 yards to the middle of the green.  Although I wish those distances could not be achieved, I can accept that those seem "reasonable" given current technology. 

If Stricker/Furyk are carrying their driver 300 yards  - and DJ his 3-wood - as CBS would have it, then we are in great trouble indeed.

My technological shortcomings prevent me from figuring out how to upload the Google Earth image with the distances laid out.  Perhaps someone else could do that to better answer resolve this question. 

[David_Madison]

Pat,

I agree with you that being able to hit a 7-iron the same distance as you can hit your 3-iron is an advantage. The well applied ability to hit the ball a long way is always an advantage. But isn't the question more about distance obviating the need to interact with the architecture? Holes like those I mentioned, such as Riviera #10, the third hole at Pinehurst #2 (especially now after the C&C redo), and #14 Muirfield Village force the player to interact with the architecture no matter how far he can hit it. Those attempting to drive the green but failing don't score any better, and often worse, than those laying up and then wedging on. But, those trying to drive the green and then either hitting the green or leaving their balls in good position can score better. In either case, they aren't getting a pass on dealing with the architecture simply by blowing their shots over it.

It seemed that at Plainfield the players could just blow it over the trouble and then the course was naked. Not the case with these other holes. Which gets me back to my point that it does seem possible to design holes that are playable and enjoyable for all levels of player while still requiring tour level players to deal with the architecture. Plainfield simply lacked those attributes. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

Why does this matter?  Why does it matter for Plainfield?  Why does it matter for any golf course that isn't a TPC course?  
Any course that isn't too short for a PGA Tour pro is too long for 99.99% of all golfers, meaning it is more expensive to construct and maintain than is necessary.

JNC, you're forgetting that the PGA Tour Pros play from different tees than do 99.99 % of all golfers.

I'm not.  But building new tees and making golf courses longer for pros affects the whole game.  Longer golf courses take up more land, take longer to play, and are more expensive to play and build.  Hence, longer back tees affect all golfers, even if they are not playing from those tees.

That's true, but that's been the trend for the last 20-30 years, and it will continue to be the trend unless something is done about the I&B.

Who gives a damn if a course is too short for PGA Tour pros?

Because, chances are, from the forward tee, it's too short for today's better or long hitting amateurs.
They no longer interface with the architectural features.

Recently, I played with a 5 handicapper, who, on the second hole of Trump Bedminster, drove it 40 yards from the green from the blue tees.

He's a young man with a family and a business who doesn't devote a lot of time to golf.
If he did, his handicap would be lower and the architectural features would become more and more meaningless to him.

That's my point

So this guy kills the ball and doesn't play that much.  There are a few guys like that out there.  They are also plenty of players--plenty of very good players--who play every day and don't hit the golf ball very far.  I'm a 5 handicap, and I don't hit it much farther than 260.

Think about that.
Palmer, Player, Casper, Hogan and Snead could never routinely hit the ball 260, and yet, here you are, a 5 handicapper blasting it distances they never dreamed of.  It emphasizes my point.   When golfers of limited ability, no insult intended, are hitting the ball considerably farther than the best golfers in the world used to hit it, there's got to be something wrong with that.

And, when high school kids are blasting it as far or farther than the seasoned PGA Tour Pros, and the PGA Tour Pros hit it a mile, there's got to be something wrong with that.

A lot of my low-handicap friends are the same way.  Point is--not every good player will be able to interface with the architecture.  Some guys will hit it the correct length, but some will hit it farther and some will hit it shorter.

Yes, but when distance is systemic, when mediocre, good and great players are all hitting it much longer, obsoleting the golf courses, there's something wrong with that.

The solution is to place hazards at all different distances off the tee.  Put some at 180, 200, 240, 280, and 330 on various holes.  That way, everyone will interface with the architecture at one point or another.  

When was the last time you saw a course designed as you describe above ?

Think of the maintainance budget

And of course, you can defend par at the greens, because everyone will have to deal with the challenge of the green at some point.  


Ahhh, but when you defend at the green, you unduly punish the mediocre to poor golfer.

The solution is not to overreact and lengthen the golf course.[/b][/size]



The solution is to reign in the I&B.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, or anyone, really--

What is the under-par winning score at which we declare a course "obsolete" or "too short" for the pros?

Tim, the heart of the issue is "cause and effect".
What's causing the scores to be low ?
Certainly talent, but, it's also the I&B which equates to distance, which allows the golfer to avoid the features and hazards that were intended to interface with him.

Can a course that DOES "force the players to interface with the architecture" yield a winning score of -16 or better? 

Certainly, great golf should produce great scores.
But, "Bomb and Gouge" is a method of play that thumbs its nose at the architecture.
It allows the golfer to ignore the architecture and that's not the intent.

Or must such a course defend par better than that?

I guess the best example I can give is the following one.

During a casual round at ANGC, Watson or some other great player gets up on the first tee and whistles a drive down the right side.
The ball goes into the rightside fairway bunker.  Watson or sogp can't believe it and takes out a range finder.
The previous year, he had easily carried that bunker, thus, when he hit his drive flush, he was shocked to see it land in the bunker.
Turns out, that the bunker had been enlarged and repositioned, lengthwise.

WHY ?
Because that bunker had become a vistigial organ, useless in terms of presenting an architectural challenge, so ANGC returned the strategic relevance of that bunker as it was previously intended.  Now, not every club can just reconfigure their features, so the easiest and probably cheapest method or returning the feature to architectural relevance is through tee lengthening.   And that's the problem, you can only go back so far in many instances.  # 15, # 17 and # 18 at Plainfield are just a few of them.

Also, if taking high-level professional events to the great classic courses causes us to be frustrated over the fact that their best features are not accessed by the players, why have we been pining for the Tour to go away from the modern, championship-geared courses and back to these classics? 

Probably because that's what the masses, the audience want to see.

Let's just hold every major at Atlanta Athletic Club and be done with it.

Wasn't that the concept behind the TPC courses ?

Or is it things other than just driving distance that cause these courses to seem obsolete? 
Such as the foot of rain Plainfield received prior to the tournament?  Such as lift-clean-and-place?  Such as the slower green speeds?
Not at all.

I played there after the Barclay's, and the rain, green speeds and LC&P are just crutches, excuses to camoflage the real problem, the I&B and distance.

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I was too lazy to read the whole thread, but my first inclination would be that it is both the distance and the conditioning. 

They still shoot way under par at 6900 yards even with firm conditions.  But I think you see a lot more two putts on those green when they invariably have more hop and roll to worry about when their approaches hit the green. 

What do you think the winning score would have been if the wind was at 10-15knots and the conditions were fast?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never been to Plainfield, so my apologies if I am incorrect, but:

I checked out Google Earth while watching the telecast and seeing the shots into 18, and being surprised by some of the commentary.  I usually find that CBS - McCord in particular - inflates the distance that the pros are hitting the ball.  They seem to "forget," or not notice, situations where the tees have been moved forward (For example - the 18th tee at Atlanta AC for the last round of the PGA). 

According to Google Earth from the forward tee on Plainfield 18, (the one that I believe the pros were playing) the carry is 253 from the back of that tee to the front edge. 

That's incorrect.
I'm looking at the yardage book prepared for the event, and on # 18, it specifically states, ?  "TEE SHOTS, This hole measured from 2nd tee"
and it's the forward tee.  The distance to the FRONT of the green is 279.  The green is 34 yards deep, so to go over the green, it's 34 + 279 or 313. And, it's steeply uphill.

From the tee closer to the 17th green, the carry is in the 295 range.
Your measurements are wrong.

On the 9th hole, the carry is approximatley 305 to reach the fairway above the second bunker from the right - from the tips.
That's still a narrow part of the fairway, and, that's just clearing the hazard by a hair.
I don't think the Pros would mind being in the bunker, but, I doubt that they'd like being buried in the damp grass face of the bunker.

I understand that both carries are significantly uphill, and perhaps I am looking at the wrong information, but I can accept the idea that Steve Stricker, Jim Furyk etal can perhaps carry their driver 250 + yards uphill and that Dustin Johnson could carry his 3-wood approximatley 260 yards to the middle of the green.  Although I wish those distances could not be achieved, I can accept that those seem "reasonable" given current technology. 

What you don't understand is that guys were hitting # 18 with fairway woods.
You can't believe how uphill that shot is.

And, guys were driving it just short of # 9 and # 4  and # 15 AND, there was LITTLE if ANY ROLL.

If Stricker/Furyk are carrying their driver 300 yards  - and DJ his 3-wood - as CBS would have it, then we are in great trouble indeed.

When guys are hitting it over # 18, 313 yards, which is incredibly uphill, with fairway woods, we are indeed in deep trouble.
That's one of the reasons I inititated this thread

My technological shortcomings prevent me from figuring out how to upload the Google Earth image with the distances laid out.  Perhaps someone else could do that to better answer resolve this question. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I was too lazy to read the whole thread, but my first inclination would be that it is both the distance and the conditioning. 

They still shoot way under par at 6900 yards even with firm conditions.  But I think you see a lot more two putts on those green when they invariably have more hop and roll to worry about when their approaches hit the green. 

What do you think the winning score would have been if the wind was at 10-15knots and the conditions were fast?

Ben, don't take this personally, but let me rephrase your question. 

What would the scores have been if they played during Hurricane Irene ?

Come on, now you're injecting the introduction of winds of 10-15 knots ?  ?  ?

Does the PGA just order them up ?

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I was too lazy to read the whole thread, but my first inclination would be that it is both the distance and the conditioning. 

They still shoot way under par at 6900 yards even with firm conditions.  But I think you see a lot more two putts on those green when they invariably have more hop and roll to worry about when their approaches hit the green. 

What do you think the winning score would have been if the wind was at 10-15knots and the conditions were fast?

Ben, don't take this personally, but let me rephrase your question. 

What would the scores have been if they played during Hurricane Irene ?

Come on, now you're injecting the introduction of winds of 10-15 knots ?  ?  ?

Does the PGA just order them up ?

Pat,

Yes, a hurricane.  I get it.  I wasn't disputing that there was wind.  But do you really think the main reason for the scores was the length?  I have a lot of confidence in those greens after having seen them last fall around this time of year.  I had a harder time with them than the ones at PV!

I agree that it is short for a tour event.  But say that the conditions were at their normal speed and firmness, is it still 19 under after three rounds?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I agree with you that being able to hit a 7-iron the same distance as you can hit your 3-iron is an advantage. The well applied ability to hit the ball a long way is always an advantage. But isn't the question more about distance obviating the need to interact with the architecture? Holes like those I mentioned, such as Riviera #10, the third hole at Pinehurst #2 (especially now after the C&C redo), and #14 Muirfield Village force the player to interact with the architecture no matter how far he can hit it.


For sake of argument, let's assume that I agree with you.

The distance issue still thwarts the architecture because instead of requiring a driver to hit the ball into position, the golfer can hit a 4 or 5 iron.

I will never forget the bunker shot Tiger hit, over the water, 200++ yards, with a 6-iron.

A shot that the best golfers in the world, only a few decades earlier, never would have dreamed of.

Those attempting to drive the green but failing don't score any better, and often worse, than those laying up and then wedging on.

I don't agree with that premise

But, those trying to drive the green and then either hitting the green or leaving their balls in good position can score better.
In either case, they aren't getting a pass on dealing with the architecture simply by blowing their shots over it.

Yes, they are.
They no longer worry about any bunkers/features other than GREENSIDE features.

It seemed that at Plainfield the players could just blow it over the trouble and then the course was naked.
Not the case with these other holes.
Which gets me back to my point that it does seem possible to design holes that are playable and enjoyable for all levels of player while still requiring tour level players to deal with the architecture. Plainfield simply lacked those attributes. 

Every course lacks those attributes when you look at the issue in the following context.

For a tournament, especially a tournament for highly skilled golfers, do you feel that the play of the course should, in effect, be a thorough examination of the golfer's game/skills with all of his clubs ?  That every facet of his game should be tested ?

His driving ?
His Fairway woods
His Long irons
His medium irons
His short irons,
His recovery game,
His putting.

Has that test been skewed such that fairway woods and long irons are rarely tested ?

These are the greatest golfer's in the world, shouldn't their test be commensurate with their abilities ?

Bomb and Gouge rarely provides a thorough examination.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

I suspect that you and many, many others are living in a dream world.

Achieving fast and firm conditions in July, August and early September in Metro NY is next to impossible.

Mother Nature really has to be kind to you.

Courses can't simply transition to Fast & Firm within a week and then transition back out of them three days later.

Most of Plainfield's greens are fabulous, but, with those slopes, at what stimp speed does it become "goofy golf" ?

13 ?

At 13 you'd lose most hole locations and on many greens, like # 1, you probably couldn't keep the ball on the green.

There's a fantasy that looms large on GCA.com and that's the concept that F&F will thwart the best golfers in the world from shooting low scores, and that's not true.

Question for you and others.

How do you achieve F&F throughout your golf course while still maintaining lush, difficult rough ?

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I too think that Plainfield is short for a tour event.  It's just that I'm not ready to call it obsolete as a test of golf for the pros just yet.  I'd like to see it get another shot.

I don't think firm conditions will thwart the best players, but I don't think the score would've been 19-under after 54 holes either.  As to your agronomic question; I don't know the specifics, but I'd ask John Zimmers at Oakmont.  He does a pretty fine job of keeping firm conditions and brutally lush bluegrass rough. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I too think that Plainfield is short for a tour event.  It's just that I'm not ready to call it obsolete as a test of golf for the pros just yet.  I'd like to see it get another shot.

I don't think firm conditions will thwart the best players, but I don't think the score would've been 19-under after 54 holes either.  As to your agronomic question; I don't know the specifics, but I'd ask John Zimmers at Oakmont.  He does a pretty fine job of keeping firm conditions and brutally lush bluegrass rough. 

Didn't Oakmont lose or come close to losing their greens this year ?

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I too think that Plainfield is short for a tour event.  It's just that I'm not ready to call it obsolete as a test of golf for the pros just yet.  I'd like to see it get another shot.

I don't think firm conditions will thwart the best players, but I don't think the score would've been 19-under after 54 holes either.  As to your agronomic question; I don't know the specifics, but I'd ask John Zimmers at Oakmont.  He does a pretty fine job of keeping firm conditions and brutally lush bluegrass rough. 

Didn't Oakmont lose or come close to losing their greens this year ?

Pat,

Based on what I've learned in school--and sort of tongue in cheek--Oakmont is about 24-48 hours from losing their greens at any given time during the hot summer if the cut is less than 0.10 inch.  That's why what they do up there in regards to speeds is so extraordinary from an agronomic perspective.  Pilots don't even live on that kind of edge. 

[JNC Lyon]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

Why does this matter?  Why does it matter for Plainfield?  Why does it matter for any golf course that isn't a TPC course?  
Any course that isn't too short for a PGA Tour pro is too long for 99.99% of all golfers, meaning it is more expensive to construct and maintain than is necessary.

JNC, you're forgetting that the PGA Tour Pros play from different tees than do 99.99 % of all golfers.

I'm not.  But building new tees and making golf courses longer for pros affects the whole game.  Longer golf courses take up more land, take longer to play, and are more expensive to play and build.  Hence, longer back tees affect all golfers, even if they are not playing from those tees.

That's true, but that's been the trend for the last 20-30 years, and it will continue to be the trend unless something is done about the I&B.

Who gives a damn if a course is too short for PGA Tour pros?

Because, chances are, from the forward tee, it's too short for today's better or long hitting amateurs.
They no longer interface with the architectural features.

Recently, I played with a 5 handicapper, who, on the second hole of Trump Bedminster, drove it 40 yards from the green from the blue tees.

He's a young man with a family and a business who doesn't devote a lot of time to golf.
If he did, his handicap would be lower and the architectural features would become more and more meaningless to him.

That's my point

So this guy kills the ball and doesn't play that much.  There are a few guys like that out there.  They are also plenty of players--plenty of very good players--who play every day and don't hit the golf ball very far.  I'm a 5 handicap, and I don't hit it much farther than 260.

Think about that.
Palmer, Player, Casper, Hogan and Snead could never routinely hit the ball 260, and yet, here you are, a 5 handicapper blasting it distances they never dreamed of.  It emphasizes my point.   When golfers of limited ability, no insult intended, are hitting the ball considerably farther than the best golfers in the world used to hit it, there's got to be something wrong with that.

And, when high school kids are blasting it as far or farther than the seasoned PGA Tour Pros, and the PGA Tour Pros hit it a mile, there's got to be something wrong with that.

A lot of my low-handicap friends are the same way.  Point is--not every good player will be able to interface with the architecture.  Some guys will hit it the correct length, but some will hit it farther and some will hit it shorter.

Yes, but when distance is systemic, when mediocre, good and great players are all hitting it much longer, obsoleting the golf courses, there's something wrong with that.

The solution is to place hazards at all different distances off the tee.  Put some at 180, 200, 240, 280, and 330 on various holes.  That way, everyone will interface with the architecture at one point or another.  

When was the last time you saw a course designed as you describe above ?

Think of the maintainance budget

And of course, you can defend par at the greens, because everyone will have to deal with the challenge of the green at some point.  


Ahhh, but when you defend at the green, you unduly punish the mediocre to poor golfer.

The solution is not to overreact and lengthen the golf course.[/b][/size]



The solution is to reign in the I&B.
 

Ballyneal and Dismal River were two, among others, that featured bunkering at varying distances off the tees.  Of course, I don't think you need to have bunkers at all of those distances on every hole.  Instead, put a bunker 220 off the first tee, 310 off the second tee, 180 off the third tee, etc. etc. etc.

And yes, there is something wrong with the equipment, but it only helps those at the very top of the heat.  Most golf courses won't see action from those players anyways.  I don't think many high school kids hit it farther than tour players.  Maybe a couple like Jordan Spieth that you see on television in TOUR EVENTS, but other than that, the pros hit it farther than anyone else.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()